할인약정금
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2 and the addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The following shall be added to the “including the 7th category” under the 3rd page:
(b) modify “Witness H” under the fifth below to “H of the first instance trial.”
2. Additional determination
A. Whether each of the instant discount sales agreements is valid or not, the Defendant concluded each of the instant discount sales agreements with the Plaintiffs on June 30, 2014, but thereafter, concluded each of the instant supply agreements that are contrary to the said discount sales agreement on July 4, 2014 or on July 22, 2014, and accordingly, asserts that each of the instant discount sales agreements has no effect.
According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, it is recognized that Article 1 (1) of each of the instant discount allotment agreements provides that "the first sale price shall be at a discount of KRW 23,00,000,000," and Article 2 provides that "the matters of this special agreement are separate from the supply contract, and matters other than the above special agreement shall be applied in preference to the supply contract."
Therefore, each of the instant discount allotment agreements is separate agreements premised on each of the instant supply contracts, and it is difficult to view that each of the instant supply contracts is contrary to each of the instant supply contracts.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. 8,00,000 won is paid to the person in charge of the business that achieved the sale in principle, and there is no reason for the plaintiffs to receive.
The plaintiffs were paid to the plaintiffs on the condition of cancelling each discount sale agreement of this case.
Therefore, if each of the discount agreements of this case is valid, the plaintiffs received.